Is A Narrative Review Different From A Literature Review?

A systematic literature review and a narrative literature review serve distinct purposes within the realm of academic research. A systematic review primarily aims to establish a clear and specific research question. It employs a rigorous methodology that encompasses both qualitative and quantitative approaches to comprehensively assess all accessible evidence, with the ultimate goal of providing a comprehensive and evidence-based answer to the defined question.

Conversely, narrative literature reviews are characterized by their flexibility to address one or more inquiries, often with a broader and less tightly defined scope. While systematic reviews follow a structured and systematic process, narrative reviews tend to be more interpretive and may include a range of sources to build a coherent narrative around a topic. This narrative approach can be particularly useful when exploring multifaceted or complex subjects that don’t lend themselves easily to a systematic analysis. In essence, the key distinction lies in the methodology and scope, with systematic reviews offering a highly structured, exhaustive analysis, while narrative reviews provide a more holistic and flexible exploration of a topic.

A narrative review, also known as a traditional literature review, serves as a comprehensive, critical, and objective analysis of existing knowledge on a particular subject. It plays a pivotal role in the research process by providing a thorough examination of the current state of knowledge within a given field. These reviews are invaluable for establishing a robust theoretical framework and providing a clear focus and context for your research endeavors. As of July 7, 2023, understanding what a narrative review entails is crucial for researchers and academics looking to undertake rigorous and well-informed investigations in their respective fields.